kimpossiblefandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Clothes Articles
Ron's Clothes Ill Suited --Posted by LR in talk page.-- Does Kim's battlesuit count? While he may have worn it, it is NOT his clothes. Love Robin (talk) 17:13, February 1, 2013 (UTC) :I think that we need to focus more on what they have worn. As it is debatable as to who "owns" some of what they have worn. For instance, do we really know that the battle suit is really Kim's or is it Wade's and he lets her wear it? We don't know. :Mknopp (talk) 19:31, February 1, 2013 (UTC) :::I would have to say if it was kept in her closet, in a vault in fact, that it is hers. Now Sheela's leopard catsuit sounds like something Wade only lent her. Shego's outfit was Shego's, but since the last time we saw that particular one it was on Kim with no indication she took it off anytime soon, *I* like to think of it now in her closet, in the vault, hanging behind the battle and stealth suits, and thus now hers. :::But that's moi… :::At the very least we should make a distinction between what belongs to a character, and what they wear. I can see Kim and Ron owning wetsuits, makes sense to own them. However I don't see them owning spacesuits, expensive things, even for the daughter of a rocket scientist; those they'd just have *worn*. :::Love Robin (talk) 20:15, February 1, 2013 (UTC) Yet, a police officer has a gun that is often kept in their house, most likely locked up when they are not on duty. However, they don't always own it. The gun is issued to them, and if they were to leave the force they would have to give the gun back. So, just because she keeps the very high-tech and likely highly expensive--more expensive than a spacesuit--battle suit in a location which is secure and easily accessible to its primary user does not mean that she owns it. The very fact that we can debate this means that it could be a point of contention. Besides, does it really matter who owns the clothes/items that we see them wear? The important point is that they wore it, not who actually owns it. At least to me it is. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Mknopp (talk) 01:08, February 3, 2013 (UTC) Main issue is to define what is meant so all are on the same page. and I still maintain the Mind Games one need to be which *body* wore the clothes, or do both for both; for example… "Kim's body wore" and "Kim in Ron's body wore" Love Robin (talk) 03:23, February 3, 2013 (UTC) I agree completely. We need to define what is meant to be on the page. It just so happened that this issue came up now. As you mention it has actually came up before, but was never settled. Most of the times I don't see any problems. If they are seen wearing it, then it is pretty much assumed and likely that it is their clothes. However, there are a few instances where there will be some contention. So far I have two: 1) Someone wears something that we know they don't own. For instance, Kim trying on clothes in StD. Ron wearing Kim's battle suit is another one. 2) Defining what wearing means in regards to the person. This is in issue to the mind switching. Do we say that Kim wore Ron's clothes when she was in Ron's body or do we say that Kim wore her clothes when Ron's mind was in her body? My take on it: 1) Don't worry about ownership. If we see them wearing it we will list it. 2) I am in agreement with LR. When there is dissonance between "mind" and "body" then we stick with the body and make note of whose mind was in control of the body. At least that is my take. I would love to hear from others on this. Mknopp (talk) 15:30, February 3, 2013 (UTC)